C1REX, thanks for the info. I wonder why no pork.

He mentioned it can toxin our body if I remember correctly.
This is exactly opposite what dr. Kwasniewski says who is quite popular in Poland.

Here is a new (to me) bit of information on the Kitavans.



They have plenty of food to eat, aren't undernourished.

Do you mean this drastic oversimplification and confident assertion?: Carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat accumulation.

Umm... not exactly. Thats one of the things Taubes does suggest.

Here are the 11 Critical Conclusions of Good Calories, Bad Calories:

1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, does not cause heart disease.
2. Carbohydrates do, because of their effect on the hormone insulin. The more easily-digestible and refined the carbohydrates and the more fructose they contain, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.
3. Sugars—sucrose (table sugar) and high fructose corn syrup specifically—are particularly harmful. The glucose in these sugars raises insulin levels; the fructose they contain overloads the liver.
4. Refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are also the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer’s Disease, and the other common chronic diseases of modern times.
5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating and not sedentary behavior.
6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter any more than it causes a child to grow taller.
7. Exercise does not make us lose excess fat; it makes us hungry.
8. We get fat because of an imbalance—a disequilibrium—in the hormonal regulation of fat tissue and fat metabolism. More fat is stored in the fat tissue than is mobilized and used for fuel. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses this imbalance.
9. Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated, we stockpile calories as fat. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and burn it for fuel.
10. By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.
11. The fewer carbohydrates we eat, the leaner we will be.

Nowhere here do I see a suggestion of an all meat diet or avoidance of all carbohydrates.

That's an appeal to authority, i.e. "Taubes didn't say it so it's not valid". We can also argue that some of the assertions that Taubes made are indeed "drastic oversimplifications and confident assertions" such as this one "carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat accumulation". So you don"t actually disagree with the suggestion of an all meat diet because it's a "drastic oversimplification and confident assertion" since the authority you appeal to is also a "drastic oversimplification and confident assertion". In other words, you disagree with one whack job by appealing to another whack job. That doesn't work.

It's fine that you disagree, and you should if that's how you feel, but at least make an effort with your argument.

Or it could indicate that they worked their upper arms more than the Swedish.

The point about "refined and easily digestible" is that it allows a greater quantity to be eaten. It is this greater quantity that brings trouble. Accordingly, if we were able to digest the same quantity from raw fruits for example, then we'd suffer the same problems.

But do they actually digest it all? It's not merely how much you eat, it's how much you absorb. Imagine a balloon filled with sugar. Then eat it and see if the gastric juices can digest the rubber. If not, then the sugar is just going to pass with exactly zero effect. Fiber has the same effect because we can't digest it.

I don't know for you, but for me, the most important message from Taubes is this one.

Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating and not sedentary behavior.

That truly changed my life.

Patrick

It has convinced me to never restrict calories again. I eat as much as I want now, and so far I have lost 40 lb.

I kind of guessed you would use the "oh you're using the argument from authority, so I don't need to counter your point" line ....
I notice that a lot of people don't hesitate to use "authority" themselves when it suits their argument, but immediately pretend to be horrified when others do the same. Its convenient, I agree.

Quite frankly, the thing I admire about Taubes is how he does not hold anything "sacred". He bothers only about the evidence, and nothing else.

Does the evidence tell you that carbs are harmful in excess, esp refined carbs ? Yes

Does the evidence tell you that a zero carb diet is a panacea for everything ? No

Does the evidence tell you that an all meat diet is eutopia ? No

Does the evidence tell you that sat fat does not appear to be as harmful as its portrayed to be ? Yes

Its very easy to go from a "Carbs are bad" fact to a lots of other tenets, when the evidence does not portray so. Lots of people do it. They claim protein is the best thing in the world or that you should eat only meat ... or some such thing. I really admire the fact that Taubes does not fall into that trap and start preaching his own set of sacred tenets.

Actually all those 11 evidence-suggested tenets are quite revolutionary ! The most important message from GCBC, IMO, is that he restricts the points to only those suggested by the evidence. And does not get carried away and suggest half a dozen more.

It remains an appeal to authority. That I point it out is merely incidental. Don't blame me for what you said. But now you say that a "lot of people don't hesitate to use "authority" themselves when it suits their argument, but immediately pretend to be horrified when others do the same". Excuse me and with all due respect Shobha but who are you talking about here? As if vaguely pointing to "a lot of people" could justify doing the same thing they did. When you talk about "a lot of people", it's pointless and invites personal attacks if only because somebody, anybody, could take that personally and respond in kind.

I also admire Taubes for not holding anything sacred. That's because I hold nothing sacred either. Even Taubes' own words. But there's a problem here. You disagree with those who interpret Taubes' words differently than you, or those who come up with conclusions different from Taubes. Wait a minute, do you hold Taubes' words sacred? That would show an inconsistency with your argument.

Which evidence do you refer to? If the only evidence you refer to is Taubes' book, then in my opinion it's not enough. I personally use Taubes' book as part of a list of books.

What's that about utopia? As far as I know, only you said that. That would make it a straw man. About the zero carb diet being a panacea for everything, you're the only one who said that as well. Another straw man. But maybe you say that because of something else, that the cause of all ills is sugar. Well, is it? Again, nobody said that. Maybe it's a question of wording. "Panacea for everything", "cause of all ills", etc. When I speak of carbs, I talk about the diseases of civilization, not the cause of all ills. In that sense, removing carbs from the diet completely, i.e. a zero carb diet, is a panacea for the diseases of civilization.

Actually, even somebody like me can see that if he had concluded "an all meat diet seems the most reasonable solution to all those problems", then he would have been called a whack job outright and the book would have been ignored for what it was, a whack job's rantings. You don't sell the truth by making it look like fantasy. I mean, look at what you're doing right now in this very thread, you're calling people whack jobs and vilifying their rantings, although not in so many words. What would you have thought had Taubes concluded that about an all meat diet?

Taubes is a reasonable man, by all appearances. He certainly understands the effect of his words, i.e. the conclusions we will draw from his book. Come to think of it, did you ever ask him what he thought of an all meat diet? That would settle the matter right there.